Bomb Throwing

On November 16th, John Kyl (R-AZ) announced his intent to block ratification of the "New START" treaty. The key provisions of this treaty would limit both the United States and Russia to no more than 1550 strategic nuclear warheads on no more than 700 launch platforms.

I had written a very long post on this subject which frankly provided a lot of background, but in the interest of brevity, I'll try to summarize below:

1. In the 1950's and on into the 1960's, the United States practiced a doctrine called "massive retaliation", we were supreme, and we expected to devastate the Soviets in any nuclear exchange.

2. Sputnik signalled the start of the strategic nuclear arms race. We and the Soviets, over the next 15 or so years, built thousands of launch platforms (ICBM's, submarine launched missiles and bombers).

3. In 1967 the US completed the last of it's "new" launch platforms

4. Four times between 1948 and 1970 the Soviet Union offered to unilaterally disarm if we would also agree to eventually disarm

5. In 1972 we signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (now known as SALT I), this treaty, among other things, limited the number of Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) sites to 2 per country.
ABMs were seen as a massively destabilizing weapon because they might falsely give confidence to one side or another about the ability to attack without much damage in response.

6. From the middle 1960's on, each side began building many more nuclear warheads (in the case of the US - deploying them as MIRV's or Multiple Independent Re-Entry Vehicles), and launchers, in the case of the Soviets. Both sides topped out around 2400 launchers and 8700 warheads in the late 70's and early 80's. This gave each side the ability to wipe out all life on earth some 40 times over.

7. President Carter was criticized by the right for halting the B1 Bomber program in 1977. At the time, Carter commented the bomber would be obsolete before completion, was needless, and would spend money we didn't have and/or would be better spent on the "next generation" (he knew of the development of the B-2). Carter's observations were dead-on. The B1 is a horrid, useless bomber. Despite being built 30 years after the B-52, it will be retired long-before the B-52 and it cost $250 Million per plane. The money for the B1 program would have bought 12 B-2's, a bomber we are struggling to pay for now.

As a result of the massive build up of arms, and following immediately behind SALT I, Nixon (then Ford), then Carter, negotiated the SALT II treaty. This treaty would limit each side to 2300 launchers, effectively freezing the current number of launchers and that "no new launch platforms" would be built except to replace those already in place. Now, for the United States, this wasn't a large issue in that we hadn't deployed a new launch platform since 1967. For the Soviets, by contrast, it was a big deal, they had hundreds of new platforms being built. Such a concession on their part was huge. The treaty was signed in 1979, but when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Congress refused to ratify it (which was, in my opinion, the right thing to do). Despite the treaty not being ratified, both nations agreed to follow it's provisions, and largely did so.

During the negotiations (during Carter's Presidency) the Democrats (including Carter) were assailed for "letting" the Soviets catch us in numbers of launchers and in "throw-weight" or the total megatons of all bombs. Remember, though, that we hadn't stopped building warheads and that no new launch platform had been built since 1967. Further, that new platforms take decades to design and implement. Carter's cancellation of the B1 program was done not out of "weakness" but out of military reality. The B1 was a program few wanted, other than Rockwell (the maker) and their friends in Congress. As well, Carter had approved the Trident Submarine and the preliminary development of the MX missile.

Also remember, by the time we peaked, we could kill everything on the earth 40 times. By 1970 the United States had modified it's nuclear strategy to "mutually assured destruction" or MAD. The blunt reality was, there was nothing we could do, outside of attacking the Soviets, to stop them from building more warheads, creating more throw-weight and (and much more importantly), we recognized and THEY recognized, that any attack, any, was likely to lead to the death of every person we loved, knew, befriended or otherwise. We would end the existence of man. As such, any attack was seen as MAD. Further, we recognized any attack required the complicity not just of a handful of men (except to launch a stray missile), but hundreds of men. It was seen as beyond dubious that hundreds of men would chose to kill their children, wives and loved ones in a "first strike." Yet, quick launch ICBM's were developed to help protect against such attacks. Fail-safe measures were developed to help protect against mistaken launches (such measures require the use of codes, keys and multiple participants).

When Ronald Reagan took office, he restarted the B1. This useless bomber was built (well 100 of them were), 2 have since crashed, they've been grounded several times, and basically are seen as an obsolete (but fast) plane in our arsenal which we would use if we had a massive nuclear war, but only for that. This bomber was built because people in power wanted the money spent. Claims that we were somehow weaker than the Soviets because they could throw more megatons were seen as silly at the time, but Reagan, like many on the right, didn't really understand nuclear realities, didn't understand that a massive arms race, with each side having 25,000 nuclear weapons (including tactical and artillery weapons) was costly and useless. We could destroy all life so many times it didn't bear counting, being able to do so a few more times hardly mattered. Yet, there we were, building a bomber which was a pig to fly, unstable, carried less payload than the B-52, was not "stealthy", and other than being very fast, was in no way more survivable than the B-52. With long-range cruise missiles, either plane (in a nuclear conflict) could launch it's attack far offshore from the Soviet Union, and neither would ever have to penetrate Soviet airspace, the ONE job the B-1 was better at than the B-52.

Reagan also proposed building the MX missile in mobile launchers, another program Carter said was a waste and wouldn't work (namely the mobile launchers). Eventually, we built 100 MX missiles and placed them in existing silos - the mobile technology was seen as too costly and unlikely to work well. We put the MX into what were called "dense-pack" arrangements - tightly grouped silos which were felt most likely to survive any attack as a nuclear weapon detonation would make other weapons targeted at the missile field far less likely to survive to detonate. This term, "dense pack" was occasionally used derisively to refer to Reagan's strategic savvy. At another point, Reagan famously quipped that the United States probably would win a limited nuclear war in Europe. A comment which earned him great scorn among our European allies and one which he had to rapidly retract and apologize for making. The thought of us fighting a nuclear war on someone elses soil, and that such a war was "winnable", were seen as irresponsible in the first part and exceedingly naive' in the second. What could possibly be claimed to be "won" if London, Paris, Berlin and Rome were nuclear wastelands?

Reagan also began developing new anti-ballistic missile technology, which was dubbed at the time "Star Wars" because it was considered so advanced and theoretical that it might never be possible to implement. As of 2010, "Star Wars" technology has successfully shot down a couple of strategic missiles (from ground/sea based launchers) after going through a dozen iterations. It is seen as no closer than decades away from being usable on a wide scale, 25 years after it's development. The Patriot missile was an outgrowth, and so the effort wasn't useless, just vastly costly.

One final point, with regard to SALT II, Reagan and the right-wingers claimed the Soviets could not be trusted and would not allow us to access their nuclear sites to inspect the numbers of warheads and launchers they possessed. Notwithstanding that satellites could easily verify such numbers, do you know what they (the Soviets) did? They allowed us to access their nuclear sites to inspect the numbers of warheads and launchers they possessed. So much so that by the late 1980's, no more concerns about "verification" existed. So much so, that Reagan began negotiating a treaty of his own.

For, when Reagan found there was no real way to protect the United States from attack because no such missile defenses existed (they'd been limited by SALT I - something Reagan wasn't aware of as it was something those on the right never really accepted after SALT I), to his great credit, Reagan negotiated the START treaty. START (or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), dramatically reduced the numbers of warheads and launchers, taking such numbers down to 6000 warheads on no more than 1600 launchers/platforms. This treaty was ratified in 1994 and both countries have abided. We no longer made claims the Soviets would lie, that we couldn't verify their numbers, etc.. With Star Wars on the shelf, Reagan acted in the best interests of the United States and agreed to finally halt and even reverse (which was his goal), the nuclear arms race.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was much concern raised about the disposition of the former Soviet satellite nations owning nuclear weapons. With the help of Boris Yeltsin, Bush Sr. and Clinton worked to get such arms back into the hands of Russia proper.

Now, in 2010, with a resurgent Russia (fueled by oil), under the control of a dictator (Vladimr Putin), the spectre of another arms race looms. There is NO need for new weapons, we have the ability to kill the world dozens of times. There has been general agreement that 400 nuclear warheads would be sufficient to kill all the people in either country, and even as few as 40 would start a "nuclear winter" sufficient to starve half the world's population. We have fielded the Trident Submarine and B2 Bomber, platforms so stealthy as to be virtually undetectable. We are allowed under "New START" to build new platforms, just not to exceed 1550 warheads and 700 launchers.

Yet, John Kyl and the Republicans do not want to allow Barack Obama to agree to such a treaty. Now, these are the same people who say the President is the rightful leader of military and foreign policy, and cried bloody murder when Democrats attempted to restrain Bush. They are the same Republicans who claimed we should either amend the Constitution to GIVE the President effectively unitary and limitless power in time of war OR accept that the Constitution already does so.

They claim any such agreement would unduly and improperly limit our "strategic options", though of course what options those are, and what they need for them is, they do not say. They also fail to remember that it was Reagan who initiated the idea of REDUCING, not just limiting the number of arms, with the eventual intent to eliminate these dangerous, horrific weapons, if possible.

The need for MORE weapons is not proven and cannot be proved. The 1970's and 1980's helped to show us that such endless building is futile. You can only commit suicide once. Having a few extra weapons to ensure that anything you might lose to a "sneak attack" made some sense (and still does, kinda), but past that, anything else is beyond overkill, it's a senseless waste of money on needless weapons.

There can only be two reasons for this stance. First, the Republicans want to "stick" it to Obama, and standing in the way of his treaty is one way. Second, and much more importantly, they want to spend money on weaponry, much as they did in the 1970's and 1980's - much as they did on needless, stupid weapons like the B1 and the MX "mobile launcher" and on Star Wars.

With Vladimr Putin in charge of Russia, with Russia now MUCH more economically capable than it was in 1980, is it really in our strategic interest to goad them into another stupid, useless arms race? If we're going to say "enough is enough" to stupid spending, wouldn't this be the perfect time?